Special Edition Special Edition Special Edition Special Edition

 

August 2003
Issue 7/2003
  to receive GFAR Newsletter regularly

 

 

Editorial

Pre-GFAR 2003 CSO Workshop

Keynote Addresses

From Dresden to Dakar

Roundtable Discussions

Poster Session

Side Events

Sub-plenary Session on GPPs

Stakeholder Consultations

GFAR 2003 Conference Evaluation

 

Back to CONTENTS

 

List of Acronyms 

 

Poster Session

Poster Session

GFAR launched a poster competition with the theme Successful Cases of Agricultural Research and Sustainable Development Partnerships by sending out a call for proposals via the GFAR stakeholder mailing list. The overall purpose of the competition was to circulate information about successful multi-stakeholder partnership experiences in ARD with the objective of feeding strategic thinking on the mandate of GFAR. Approximately 60 written proposals were received and were then passed through a screening process based on the guidelines as outlined in the next section.

Mechanisms and Outcomes

The two fundamental criteria for a submission to be considered were the need for a clear focus on the theme of Successful Partnership in ARD and the involvement of a minimum of three stakeholder groups recognized by GFAR (i.e. FOs, NGOs, private sector, IARCs, ARIs, RF/SRF, NARS, donors) in the partnership.

The proposal was to clearly indicate: (1) the purpose and nature of the partnership (i.e. why those participants, their respective roles and the advantages they bring to the partnership); (2) a description of the activities of the partnership (i.e. what was carried out, when and where, length of activity); (3) the status of the activity (i.e. ongoing, completed); (4) the outputs and how the partnership contributed to the outputs; (5) the impact of this partnership experience and any spillover effects (i.e. on the partners, beneficiaries, community at large); (6) lessons learned in building and maintaining the partnership and recommendations for involvement in future partnerships; and (7) next steps.

After the screening process by the GFAR Secretariat, 30 proposals were retained to be developed into a full poster to compete during the conference, and the two best proposals were selected for presentation during Plenary Session II on Sharing of Successful Regional Fora and Stakeholder Experiences in ARD (see Boxes 5 and 6).

Box 5. Case Study 1: A Partnership for Milk / Meat Preservation Technologies Development in Kenya

Laura Lemunyete, PEAR Group, and Anne Bruntse, Dairy Processing Specialist

Introduction

Nutritional deficiencies and lack of food security are quickly becoming serious issues for the nomadic pastoral people in the semi-arid areas of northern Kenya. However, at certain times of the year there can be surpluses of raw livestock resources such as camel milk and good quality meat. Through a partnership project steps have been taken to promote traditional and modern methods of preserving these surpluses for use during times of need thereby increasing food security of the local population. The project was initiated in early 2001 by the Salato Women's Group (a pastoralist community group), PEAR Group, a private sector consultant with expertise in appropriate technology, and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). Participatory technology development was used in researching and testing appropriate milk and meat preservation technologies. Initial experiments were conducted on various technologies based on current literature on modern methods and traditional knowledge followed by field experimentation directly involving the community.

Objectives

There were three overall objectives of the partnership project. The first was to establish a link between research and literature on milk and meat preservation techniques and ultimately for pastoralist communities to be able to effectively use this information to generate products that increase food security while generating income. The second was to enhance the capacity of self-help groups to start small-scale milk and meat preservation enterprises at the community level. Finally, the third objective was to develop suitable improved products through participatory technology development for community processing and use combining modern and traditional methods of milk and meat processing.

Outcomes, Impacts and Lessons Learned

Through implementation of this project some broad principles on the nature of partnership were learned by the participants. The value of the partnership itself as well as the role of each partner was recognized. At the same time, the role of each associate must be flexible and evolve according to the needs of the others and the project. If well balanced partnership is forged, all skills needed for the success of the project should be met with all associates bringing a specific comparative advantage to the team. It was noted that all partners are indispensable and that the level of commitment of each must be evaluated before entering into collaboration.

At the community level some very concrete benefits were felt from the implementation of this project. In the Ngurunit Community a dairy and a meat processing facility were established thereby increasing food security and generating income. From the profits of these two facilities grants have been offered for further development of other economic enterprises in the community. Literacy and management training courses were offered to the participants. Upon the request of other communities, the project was expanded and exchange visits organized. Labor saving technologies and new products were developed, along with a new market for these products.

Next Steps

The project is entering into its last phase with a focus on how to sustain the activities indefinitely after the end of the project in June 2004. Quality control and improved skin tanning will also be researched in the upcoming year.

KARI is becoming a tool to assist the population of Kenya to work towards food security and will continue to aid in initiating income generating projects at the village level. PEAR Group is promoting education on nutrition in local communities and will incorporate this into the regular syllabus for adult education. The Salato Women's Group will further integrate the new products developed in the course of the project at the household level.

Considerable interest has been generated in replicating this successful project in other communities in Kenya, and requests for information on specific technologies have been received from Somalia and United Arab Emirates. All efforts will be made to disseminate the information and technologies of this project so as to benefit the wider community.

Back to top

 

Box 6. Case Study 2: China/Canada Dryland Farming Project

Chi Chang, George Clayton, Steve Morgan Jones, Ma Zhanyuan, Li Guanming, Walter Redekop, Zhixin Chen and Tusheng Re

Introduction

Due to many factors related to intense crop production the sustainability of the agricultural sector in the lowland plain of Hebei, China is under threat. In partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Government of China co-funded the China/Canada Dryland Farming Project to address this issue of sustainability. The project has been carried out in two phases, the first from 1991-96 concentrated on five research and one agricultural components, and the second is still ongoing and is focused on outreach and extension to improve rural well-being and enhance the ecological sustainability of dryland farming in the region and neighboring regions. Along with the two co-sponsors, researchers and specialists from China (the Ministry of Agriculture, Departments of Agriculture of five provinces, County Agriculture Bureau, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forest Services, and village organizations) and Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) collaborated in the development and implementation of this project.

Objectives

The stated objective of the project is to develop and transfer ecologically sound dryland agricultural technology to improve water-use efficiency, soil and water quality and farming profitability in the Hebei Lowland Plain. With this overall goal in mind, the project is articulated in six components: 1) improve water-use efficiency; 2) develop sustainable cropping systems; 3) develop integrated pest management techniques; 4) improve environmental sustainability; 5) socio-economic impact and rural development of the project; and 6) improve agriculture extension.

Outcomes, Impacts and Lessons Learned

Agriculture extension in China has traditionally been top-down, however this project establishes a new participatory extension model involving many levels of stakeholders. With the assistance of and training from extension workers, farmers are given the opportunity to select and implement the technologies that are most useful for their particular conditions and needs.

This project has provided some significant technical benefits. It successfully tested and developed irrigation methods for winter wheat that improve the overall water-use efficiency while at the same time selecting for more drought-resistant varieties of wheat. The zero till crop production systems for corn, designed to conserve soil moisture, increase yield, improve soil quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has been adopted by 90% of farmers in Hebei. Farmers are also implementing newly elaborated bio-control systems for both insects and plant diseases thereby significantly lowering the use of pesticides and herbicides. Additionally, progress has been made in the development of balanced fertilization techniques aimed at optimizing yield, reducing the potential for soil and ground water pollution, and reducing costs to farmers.

The second phase of the project elaborated further the benefits related to agriculture extension. A network of extension specialists has been established involving multiple levels of government in China who are involved in technology transfer. Farmer training, field demonstrations and field days were conducted and attended by national and international specialists as well as local farmers. The transfer of technology generated an economic return of -10% to +30%, depending on the technology, when compared to previous growing practices. Direct impacts of the project have been felt by three million farms with an overall economic impact of 1.8 billion Renminbi per year at the provincial level.

Next Steps

Beyond the original 11 extension demonstration sites in Hebei Province, two more sites have been established and an additional four in neighboring provinces. Linkages have also been made to other CIDA-supported projects in the region. The partners will continue to disseminate information and technologies in a similar manner as over the last 12 years while being responsive and flexible to changing needs of farmers.

Back to top

Authors of the remaining 28 proposals were asked to develop their poster following some common standard in order to facilitate the final judging. The format of the poster had to be A0 (84 cm x 118 cm) with at least two photographs.

A group of seven judges, coming from all GFAR stakeholder groups (Stephen Krall - donors, John Russell - private sector, Romolo Zaraus - NGOs, Esta Kiwazi - FOs, Thierry Mennesson - ARIs, Ajit Maru - IARCs, Enrique Alarc�n - NARS), was asked to rate posters during the first two days of the conference and to complete a judging form for each poster, using the following as guidelines:

  1. Stakeholders: Are their names mentioned? Are stakeholder group delineations clear (can you understand if it is a farmers’ group or an NGO? Or a private company or a public institution?)
  2. Purpose: Is it clearly expressed?
  3. Activities: Is the level of involvement of each stakeholder group clear? Are activities detailed enough and, for research projects, presented on a level comprehensible to the non-expert?
  4. Outputs: Are they clearly defined? Are they detailed enough?
  5. Impact and spillover effects: Are they clear? Can you recognize the ultimate impact on end-users? Is it obvious who the end-user is?
  6. Lessons learned: Are they clearly expressed? Are new issues coming out as lessons learned? Are all lessons considered, negatives as well as positives?
  7. Next steps: Are they clearly defined?
  8. How is the balance between text and pictures? Is there too much text? Too many pictures? Can you read the poster easily? Does it attract you at first glance?
  9. Are there at least two photos? (because it was required to have at least two photos in the poster, if it does not respect this point the poster could not be selected as a winner poster)
  10. What is the general appearance? Is the poster harmonious? Balanced? Are the colors agreeable?
  11. Personal remarks

Questions 1 to 7, corresponding to the guidelines for submission of the proposal, were scored between 1 to 10, while questions 8 to 11 were scored between 1 to 5, thereby placing more emphasis on the content while still giving due consideration to visual aesthetics.

After individual scoring, panel members met to harmonize the output and jointly select the top three posters whose authors together with the two presented in plenary received a merit award.

Awards went to:

  • China/Canada Dryland Farming Project (case study)
  • Partnership for Milk/Meat Preservation Technologies Development in Kenya (case study)
  • A Partnership for Enabling Rural Innovation
  • Seeds of Life-Timor Leste
  • Protected Agriculture in Yemen Mountain Terraces: More Income for Farmers from Less Water

Back to top

In addition to the poster competition, two other display sessions were organized for ongoing GPPs and ICM/ICT activities including RAIS and other stakeholders projects addressing global, regional or national level issues. Contributing stakeholders also participated, sometimes as key speakers, in the side event titled Towards a Global Agenda for ICM.

This event had a very positive evaluation and review from the participants, and GFAR intends to repeat this type of exercise on a regular basis. Pertinent information from this session will be published in full.

Panel Discussion on Successful Partnership Experiences in ARD

As indicated earlier, the top two posters selected as having best illustrated successful partnership experiences were presented during a panel discussion session. The first presentation on Partnership for Milk/Meat Preservation Technologies Development in Kenya made by the PEAR Group, which focused on the post-production aspects of adding value to milk and meat products for market demands, identified the following as important elements for building successful partnerships: (1) the need to adopt a holistic approach for technology development; (2) a recognition of the value of the partnership and of each partner so that all partners participate fully to the best of their ability; (3) the need to accommodate a change in emphasis as the needs and roles if partners evolve and change; (4) the capability of partners to be flexible in their roles; (5) access to, and capacity-building for required skills; and (6) the recognition that high levels of literacy and skills sets may speed up the adoption of technologies.

The second presentation of the China/Canada Dryland Farming Project made by researchers from the Lethbridge Research Centre of Canada, identified additional issues judged indispensable for successful partnerships in ARD such as: (1) mutual trust among the partners; (2) patience to accomplish the set goals; (3) understanding of and accommodating cultural differences in approaches and way of doing things (especially for international partners); and (4) the importance of adequate skills as fundamental ingredients to building good partnerships.

In an extremely fruitful panel discussion moderated by Dominique Hounkonnou of African Cradles, Benin, and chaired by Alain Derevier of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representatives from NARS, ARIs, FOs, IARCs and NGOs commented on the examples of successful partnerships and made comparisons with their own regional or stakeholder experiences on lessons learned. Other participants in the audience also had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The moderator set the tone of the discussion by suggesting that not all projects qualify as partnerships and urged panelists to focus their comments on what the general prerequisites are for successful partnerships. Along those lines, the question was posed as to which was more important, the technology or the partnership. Generally, the panelists found the meat/milk preservation example an interesting model of partnership because it demonstrated the socio-economic impact of agricultural research (i.e. the livelihood implications of research) and provided two important take-home lessons: (1) flexibility - partners could drop out of the partnership or could change; and (2) recognition and acknowledgement of the interest of different stakeholders in the partnership. The meat/milk preservation case study also received commendation from the panelists for being a community-based initiative, stakeholder-driven, addressing vulnerable groups and containing important sustainability aspects (i.e. being based on the land).

Back to top

The panelists observed that the China/Canada dryland farming project was more focused on user-driven objectives such as capacity-building, institutional and infrastructural building, but had made a good choice of developing technology that farmers wanted to adopt. It appeared that improving efficiency was the objective driving the project and building capacity was consequently a crucial starting point before dealing with technology issues. However, the panelists suggested that it was better to create local institutions in-country for long-term training, which also guarantees better retention of qualified people.

A presentation of partnership lessons learned from PROMusa, a global partnership program on commodity chains under the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), provided a contrast between the added value of collaboration at the global level and the partnership experiences from the two case studies presented. The specific lessons from PROMusa's global experience were: (1) the real complexity of stakeholder relationships within a commodity chain; (2) the need for an active honest brokers role; (3) strong buy-in by all partners for the good of all; (4) that there is no ideal structure for all programs; and (5) the importance of active coordination and getting action on the ground. The PROMusa intervention also highlighted the difficulty of identifying common problems and distinguishing problems for which global-level treatments are better and which problems are researchable. Partnerships at the global level were also exemplified by the European experience with developing partnerships in ARD with southern partners and the concept of a European research area. From the European experience, key important factors for developing successful partnership are (1) stable environmental conditions; (2) stable governments; and (3) acceptable financial conditions.

General concerns from the panel about ARD partnerships and what they considered required greater attention were: (1) the absence of continuity, i.e. disappearance of activities/groups as soon as the external support was withdrawn; (2) not allowing adequate time for the partnership to be consolidated; and (3) financial and sustainability aspects. The panelists went even further, to suggest that they also would like to see the negative side of projects as lessons learned, not only the positives. According to the panel, there are clear indications that managing partnerships is not the same as managing a project or an institution. It was suggested therefore that successful partnership initiatives may require the development of new management skills, hence the need for capacity-building efforts which as much as possible should be implemented locally.

Print version

Back to top
 

GFAR Secretariat
c/o FAO, SDR, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel. +39.06.5705.3413 Fax +39.06.5705.3898
E-mail: